The Immovable Christie vs. the Unstoppable Hillary

Whenever you have a media that is concerned more with indoctrination than with information, it falls to us humble truth-seekers to find the hidden truths for ourselves. Such is the case with this new revelation that Obama's people had actually considered replacing Biden with Hillary on the ticket, right before the 2012 election. On the surface, this reads like scintillating political subterfuge. We are all supposed to gasp in shock and awe and wonder what might have been.

In reality, it pokes a giant hole in the sharknado of conventional wisdom on Hillary's presidential inevitability.

Let's take careful stock of what actually happened here. According to the story, when Obama's people started getting cold feet about the election, they began focus-grouping and polling on what the public reaction would be if Hillary replaced Joe Biden on the ticket.

The result? The polling showed that there would be no real added benefit to Obama's election chances with Hillary on the ticket instead of Biden. In other words, after hours and hours and thousands of dollars of research, learned political analysts discovered that Hillary Clinton is no better than Joe Biden.

Hillary Clinton is not significantly more palatable than possibly the emptiest of empty suits in all of Washington, D.C., and we're supposed to be cowering in the belief that she can't be stopped, and that our only hope is to nominate some centrist, non-conservative Republican to try and beat her?

Even Kurt Schlichter -- who is a very good conservative -- has gotten duped into this kind of thinking. Writing in Townhall, Schlichter says:

We must coolly and objectively assess our own situation and well as that of our enemies. That assessment shows us that we do not have the raw power - yet - that we need to force through our agenda. We would all love to see President Ted Cruz sworn in in 2017, but it probably isn't going to happen. I wish it would, but we must approach the situation as it is, not as we wish it to be. Someone's got to run against Hillary. I don't like it, but I suspect annoying pseudo-conservative Chris Christie has the best shot of beating her.

What? If the base of the Republican Party wouldn't turn out to support Mitt Romney, what do you think they're going to do for the guy who was practically gyrating on Obama's leg during Hurricane Sandy?

And why are we so sure a President Cruz is not likely to happen in 2017? ObamaCare is fast becoming about as popular a law as Prima Nocta was in the Highlands. Ted Cruz was practically the embodiment of anti-ObamaCare crusading. Why wouldn't he have as good a shot as any in 2016?

"Oh, but Fisher you don't understand. The media would savage Ted Cruz! They would rip him up one side of the barn and down the other!"

Let them! Ted Cruz was a college debating champion at Princeton. You don't think he's had to deal with his share of snarky, condescending Ivy League elitists? This would be akin to worrying about Floyd Mayweather, Jr. getting called out by Woody Allen.

Nor should anybody ever use the media as a reason for not running somebody for office. The second the words "The media will kill him/her" escape your lips, you should really just turn in your conservative warrior card and go buy a Prius. The media is going to savage any conservative worth his salt; if media angst is your barometer, then you might as well quit now, because you will never support a conservative.

Schlichter goes on: "And because a situation we aren't happy about is the most likely scenario, the objective of our 2016 offensive shouldn't be a conservative presidency. Instead of huffing and puffing about another squishy presidential nominee, we need to understand that the presidency in 2016 is a supporting, defensive effort. The worst Christie is still better than the best Hillary, so we should support him when he gets the nomination..."

This paragraph betrays a thought process the Democrats absolutely never entertain, much less consider. "[T]he objective of our 2016 campaign shouldn't be a conservative presidency"? Pardon me, but why the heck not? What's the point of anything we're doing if we're not trying to get people who champion our views into the highest offices of government?

The left would never even conceive of such a notion. The radical leftists who took over the Democratic Party in 1968 have run leftist ideologues in every single quadrennial election since -- some more left than others, but all of them definitively left. No Democrat would ever publicly say that the objective of a given presidential race shouldn't be to elect a liberal president. Nor would a Chris Christie equivalent be tolerated by that party's base.

And why? Because, rightly or wrongly, leftists believe that their ideas will win. They believe in running people who will implement those ideas.

As for us, as soon as we encounter any adversity at all, the gut instinct of many on our side is to seek out the closest thing to a Democrat we can find and smile as that person spends the entire election -- and our money! -- throwing us under the bus while losing. Why do we do that, when our ideas are so much better?

Hillary Clinton may very well win the race in 2016, but wouldn't it be better to lose while teaching the country what we believe and why we believe it? Was not at least some of Reagan's success in 1980 due to the hard-won lessons and foundations he laid down in the defeat of 1976?

If liberals can be as galactically wrong as they are -- and they are -- while tirelessly fighting for and clinging to ideals that have long since been proven both bizarre and idiotic, what right do we have as conservatives to sit here and compromise on the ideas that have stood the test of time and forged the greatest nation on Earth?

I don't care if Ted Cruz runs or not, just so long as somebody who embodies the conservative ideal is representing our party. But Hillary Clinton is a woman who has never achieved anything politically that a man didn't give her, whether it was her status and popularity as first lady, which she in turn parlayed into becoming a senator, or her gig as secretary of state, which she got as a consolation prize for being a loser.

I won't be afraid of that, and you shouldn't, either. After all, she couldn't even beat out Joe Biden.

Whenever you have a media that is concerned more with indoctrination than with information, it falls to us humble truth-seekers to find the hidden truths for ourselves. Such is the case with this new revelation that Obama's people had actually considered replacing Biden with Hillary on the ticket, right before the 2012 election.

On the surface, this reads like scintillating political subterfuge. We are all supposed to gasp in shock and awe and wonder what might have been.

In reality, it pokes a giant hole in the sharknado of conventional wisdom on Hillary's presidential inevitability.

Let's take careful stock of what actually happened here. According to the story, when Obama's people started getting cold feet about the election, they began focus-grouping and polling on what the public reaction would be if Hillary replaced Joe Biden on the ticket.

The result? The polling showed that there would be no real added benefit to Obama's election chances with Hillary on the ticket instead of Biden. In other words, after hours and hours and thousands of dollars of research, learned political analysts discovered that Hillary Clinton is no better than Joe Biden.

Hillary Clinton is not significantly more palatable than possibly the emptiest of empty suits in all of Washington, D.C., and we're supposed to be cowering in the belief that she can't be stopped, and that our only hope is to nominate some centrist, non-conservative Republican to try and beat her?

Even Kurt Schlichter -- who is a very good conservative -- has gotten duped into this kind of thinking. Writing in Townhall, Schlichter says:

We must coolly and objectively assess our own situation and well as that of our enemies. That assessment shows us that we do not have the raw power - yet - that we need to force through our agenda. We would all love to see President Ted Cruz sworn in in 2017, but it probably isn't going to happen. I wish it would, but we must approach the situation as it is, not as we wish it to be. Someone's got to run against Hillary. I don't like it, but I suspect annoying pseudo-conservative Chris Christie has the best shot of beating her.

What? If the base of the Republican Party wouldn't turn out to support Mitt Romney, what do you think they're going to do for the guy who was practically gyrating on Obama's leg during Hurricane Sandy?

And why are we so sure a President Cruz is not likely to happen in 2017? ObamaCare is fast becoming about as popular a law as Prima Nocta was in the Highlands. Ted Cruz was practically the embodiment of anti-ObamaCare crusading. Why wouldn't he have as good a shot as any in 2016?

"Oh, but Fisher you don't understand. The media would savage Ted Cruz! They would rip him up one side of the barn and down the other!"

Let them! Ted Cruz was a college debating champion at Princeton. You don't think he's had to deal with his share of snarky, condescending Ivy League elitists? This would be akin to worrying about Floyd Mayweather, Jr. getting called out by Woody Allen.

Nor should anybody ever use the media as a reason for not running somebody for office. The second the words "The media will kill him/her" escape your lips, you should really just turn in your conservative warrior card and go buy a Prius. The media is going to savage any conservative worth his salt; if media angst is your barometer, then you might as well quit now, because you will never support a conservative.

Schlichter goes on: "And because a situation we aren't happy about is the most likely scenario, the objective of our 2016 offensive shouldn't be a conservative presidency. Instead of huffing and puffing about another squishy presidential nominee, we need to understand that the presidency in 2016 is a supporting, defensive effort. The worst Christie is still better than the best Hillary, so we should support him when he gets the nomination..."

This paragraph betrays a thought process the Democrats absolutely never entertain, much less consider. "[T]he objective of our 2016 campaign shouldn't be a conservative presidency"? Pardon me, but why the heck not? What's the point of anything we're doing if we're not trying to get people who champion our views into the highest offices of government?

The left would never even conceive of such a notion. The radical leftists who took over the Democratic Party in 1968 have run leftist ideologues in every single quadrennial election since -- some more left than others, but all of them definitively left. No Democrat would ever publicly say that the objective of a given presidential race shouldn't be to elect a liberal president. Nor would a Chris Christie equivalent be tolerated by that party's base.

And why? Because, rightly or wrongly, leftists believe that their ideas will win. They believe in running people who will implement those ideas.

As for us, as soon as we encounter any adversity at all, the gut instinct of many on our side is to seek out the closest thing to a Democrat we can find and smile as that person spends the entire election -- and our money! -- throwing us under the bus while losing. Why do we do that, when our ideas are so much better?

Hillary Clinton may very well win the race in 2016, but wouldn't it be better to lose while teaching the country what we believe and why we believe it? Was not at least some of Reagan's success in 1980 due to the hard-won lessons and foundations he laid down in the defeat of 1976?

If liberals can be as galactically wrong as they are -- and they are -- while tirelessly fighting for and clinging to ideals that have long since been proven both bizarre and idiotic, what right do we have as conservatives to sit here and compromise on the ideas that have stood the test of time and forged the greatest nation on Earth?

I don't care if Ted Cruz runs or not, just so long as somebody who embodies the conservative ideal is representing our party. But Hillary Clinton is a woman who has never achieved anything politically that a man didn't give her, whether it was her status and popularity as first lady, which she in turn parlayed into becoming a senator, or her gig as secretary of state, which she got as a consolation prize for being a loser.

I won't be afraid of that, and you shouldn't, either. After all, she couldn't even beat out Joe Biden.